“Hitler was not a real socialist!” There must be something wrong with your ideology when you have to denounce its most succesful proponents. Yet socialists/communists Continually do so, because Hitler is impopular. Incredibly there are those that defend Venezuela, for its equality (Karabolut of the Dutch SP.)
Yet, what is socialism? Theft to give away to more PC people. What did Hitler do, to alleviate the housing shortage in Germany? He stole some land in other countries, to give to the people of his own country. How socialistic is that?
Socialists (like the Dutch politician Emile Roemer and the American Bernie Sanders) enjoy stoking the bullshite fire about pharmamaffia driving up prices for medication. Particularly nasty, because government requires all medication undergoes extensive (and very costly) testing before being allowed onto the market.
“But that’s a good thing, because I want my medication to be safe.”
Fair enough, but don’t you dare complain about high prices. Because you asked for the high costs, but you want someone else to pay them. That is why socialists are anti-social and egotistical.
BTW, there are better ways to ensure safety of medication. Ways that do not keep medication off the market, because the incredibly high costs make medication for rare illnesses too much of a financial loss, because the junta-mandated expenses can not be recovered. It’s better to have full transparency, without the government’s ominous shadow obscuring matters. Then the reputation of pharmaceutical companies will see to it, that they continue to attempt to provide high-quality medication. There is no institution of magical authority that they can hide behind, or can rope into doing their bidding, to hide any wrongs from the people. This way the people, in a proper democracy (self-rule) can protect themselves/eachother.
For without such the malicious example given by government, society will become much more social.
Instead of calling Hitler a fascist, because fascism is a fashionably bad word, Let’s keep it real: fascism was Mussollini’s bundling of left wing parties (“fasci” is Italian for “bundle”).
So fascism was limited to Italy, and will likely not rearise because any bundling of left wing parties will now use a different name than the contaminatedv”fasci”.
It is a bit tiresome that so many leftist arguments all revolve around the evil rich guy.
On top of that, it is disheartening, that their desire is, to make the situation worse, by growing the state/giving it more power. Thus making it a bigger lure for rich guys, that wish to get richer by having the junta throw contracts their way, or by having the junta make it harder for competitors to enter the field, by imposing regulations that established businesses can easily comply with, but that cost upstarts more money and effort.
So why exactly would anyone vote for socialists? Not to better the plight of the little guy, the big guy adores socialism, because it offers him such opportunities.
The richest people under socialism, in terms of not just money, but also the only real political currency (power) are the politicians, the people are poor as heck, not just monetarilly, but also power-wise.
Some people feel they’re very smart by saying it’s all about money, politicians only wish to maximize tax income and make their buddies in business extra rich. Those are the same people that tend to lean toward socialism, btw. Soialism puts more power in the hands of the junta, and so makes the citizens worse off; makes business more likely totry to directly influence the junta (using e.g. lobbyists) because that way businesses can get an edge over other businesses in their field.
But politics isn’t about money, apart from trying to make the people have as little of it, as possible. (Eg by taxation in the here and now; by taxation in the future – inflation)
Politicians care only for the power they have over others; democracy (demos = people, cratos = power; democracy = power over the people)
Example: Adolf Hitler
If Hitler only cared about the money, he would not have commenced an extermination program of the richest business people: after all, the Jews could have earned his regime much more in tax income when alive, but killing them gained him the only political currency that mattered: power. And cost lots of money; with all the camps and trains transporting the Jews, and invasions (partly justified as a means of exterminating the Jews in all of Europe) that cost heaps of money.
Military invasions may bring money to the lobbyists of (the German equivalent of) the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex, but cost the regime itself heaps of money, to gain them (geographical) power. Military invasions are always a financial loss over time. Look at the growth of US government debt under Obama: from a barely feasible $6,000,000,000,000 to a crippling $17 trillion, 8 years and 7 wars have brought the USA to its knees, financially. And what have they brought the country? Absolutely nothing.
The military is the penultimate government institution: it can only kill and destroy (financed by theft), it is utterly incapable of producing anything, apart from some impressive jet planes; but nothing that improves the state of humanity; it only lines the pockets of some very short sighted business people. That will go just as bankrupt as the citizens that are robbed to pay for their products.
Socialism is more natural than capitalism, because: the default state for life on earth is to be hungry, uncertain of whether a being will live to see the next day (die either from hunger, thirst, exposure or being eaten by another creature)
Which is why the instinct for ownership developed in nature (and eventually this got reinvented into modern capitalism). Since it takes (scarce) energy and effort to build a nest, catch a prey, spawn children, etc, it would hurt an animal’s chances of survival when it lets others use them without having put the effort into them that the first animal did, so the animal would have to chose between going hungry/dying and fighting to keep the prey/nest/child safe from other animals.
I know that certain silly folk point to e.g. the Plains Indians, that “did not believe in private property” and thinking that that proves socialism is more natural than capitalism. It clearly does not prove any such thing, merely that owning land was cumbersome / not enforcable for nomads that followed the herds of bizons.
Apart from that, the plains indians were clearly beyond a state of nature, having developed a human society.
Oh, the heartless practice of locking the exits to the factories! Surely, this proves that greedy capitalism kills?
Actually, no: it shows that justice was completely underdeveloped; a proper sense of restitution justice could have prevented these deaths. Since those women all died in the fire, they were unable to provide future income for their families, those families should receive restitution from the factory owner for the lost income.
This serves two purposes:
- It alleviates the pile-on tragedy of empoverishment
- It would have incentivised the owner to reconsider the erstwhile standard practice of locking people into the factory.
This would have been feasible for the 48 year old victims, but quite a bit more costly for the 14 year olds, thus incebtivizing employers to not hire children – which would have increased poverty for the young girls, though!
In short, a contract based society is a safe society.
Atthetime of this tragedy (1911) society had not developed to the point it has now. A future contract-based society will not e transplanted into 1911-standards.
If the state would pass a law forcing businesses to keep doors unlocked, that would be akin to social atrophy.